Weaving the Plot - David Copperfield

Last year I took a crack at Charles Dickens and read “Great Expectations”. I found the experience to be entertaining and educational. So this year I decided to give him another try (again during winter, which just seems like a Dickensian time). I heard that “David Copperfield” was not only the book that Dickens’ considered his favorite, but many readers consider it to be one of his most accessible novels. At the bookstore I was in for a bit of a shock – “David Copperfield” was a huge book. Weighing in at slightly less than one ton, I was intimidated. Could I endure that much Dickens, or would it end in tears? But hey, I read all of “The Histories” by Herodotus and it was about that long.

Once again it took me a couple of chapters to get into the style and language of the time. Dickens is pretty notorious for getting paid by the word, and yes there are sections of this story that prove that. But Dickens does something else that helps increase his word count without being overly verbose – he structures his story in a way that lends itself to multiple points of view. He did this to an extent in “Great Expectations”, but in “David Copperfield” it felt more obvious.

David is telling us his story, and so he provides us with two points of view. One point of view is of younger David as he makes his way through life and the other is the older David commenting on that life. This isn’t Dickens merely restating the same scenes, he actually offers commentary as older David, hinting at things we have yet to read and offering a bit more depth that the younger David can’t know. This duality actually works very well to not only increase the word count, but also add to the story on various levels.

The other thing that Dickens does is introduce a whole cast of interesting and colorful supporting characters. Some of them help David, some of them actively try to hinder him. All of them pop up continuously through the narrative. This is typical of Dickens and some fault him for it. I find it to be a charming part of the world he creates. Yes, he is commenting on current events, but I think it’s a bit easier for us reading years later to see it as a different world, a fiction where people would come into contact throughout life.

The danger of this technique is that readers will lose track of who is who. Dickens avoids this by give each character a unique personality. Sure Mr. Murdstone and Uriah Heep are both villains (with great names!), but they are uniquely wicked in their own ways. Murdstone is a rigid man who’s hypocritical adherence to religion and rules literally destroys those around him. Heep on the other hand is a slimy man, who puts on a face of humility while abusing the weaknesses of others and going out of his way to make everyone as unhappy as he is. The characters are so vividly drawn and observed by both David’s that the reader actually wants to know just what is going to happen next.

And that is pretty much what happened. I was engrossed in the story and enjoyed reading the weighty tome to its conclusion. David Copperfield himself is a rather bland fellow, reminding me a great deal of Pip from “Great Expectations”, but he’s basically a good soul who finds himself in all kinds of situations. But the reader is entertained by the supporting characters and the situations that Dickens comes up with. I have to admit that I chocked up quite a bit during the last few chapters – to me that’s a solid testament to the skill of the writer. For a book that long, I think Dickens did an excellent job.

What do you think of “David Copperfield” or Dickens in general? Do you think his approach to characters is a valid one, or do you consider it a cheat? What is the longest book that you’ve tackled, and why did it work (or not)?

Not so Great Expectations – Great Expectations

It’s strange how differently Charles Dickens is viewed. Some people find that his work is the very definition of LITERATURE. Others think that he is moralizing, over the top and over-rated. I’ve even heard some people refer to him as the Frank Capra of novels (this coming from people who dislike Capra). Where do I stand?

Well I’ve only read two things by Mr. Dickens that I remember. My freshmen year in high schoool was comprised of reading “Great Expectations” and in my freshman year in University I read “Hard Times”. Ironically “Hard Times” is exactly how I’d describe the experience of reading both novels. I remember watching a couple of versions of “Great Expectations” to help me get a handle on what the story was about.

I also vividly remembered the names of the characters: Pip, Joe, Magwitch, Miss Havisham and Estella. I remembered the basics of the plot, where Pip met the convict, helped him out. Then he met mad old Miss Havisham, and fell in love with Estella. Then he was given a huge amount of money and assumed it was given to him by Havisham, so he could grow up to be worthy of the haughty Estella. After that things got a bit fuzzy.

Well since I have been revisiting some novels I had been forced to read in my youth and found myself enjoying them, I decided to pick up “Great Expectations” again. This might have had something to do with it being December and I had seen three different versions of “A Christmas Carol” but that can be open to debate. Either way I sought out the book and started in.

I was surprised in equal measure at the things I remembered and the plot elements I had forgotten. It made it an interesting read to say the least. Did I enjoy it? I think I did. It took a little while to get into Dicken’s style, and much of it had to do with the style of the times. But he did something intriguing that actually added to the experience.

The novel is narrated by an older and wiser Pip. He tells us of his youth and is basically explaining how he became the man he is now. The funny thing is, we never get a clear scene with Pip as he is now. In fact the only way you can glean anything of his present day mind set is by his response to the memories of his youth. From this we can see that man telling the story is quite different from the arrogant youth of the story.

We end up with a complete journey for Pip but in a unique way. His actions dictate his character (as occurs in all good fiction) but the response of the older Pip define the man’s character. It was interesting and was very effective. As a reader, when Pip behaves like an ass, the older Pip will often declare younger Pip to be an ass and express shame at his actions. You continue the story to reach the point where Pip realizes that his actions aren’t the actions of a gentleman but the actions of a jerk. Only after Pip loses it everything does he realize what it means to be a gentleman.

As for the two endings, I think I prefer the revised ending. I know, blasphemy, but hear me out. Dickens doesn’t give Pip a happy ending, just the possibility of one. Him and Estella are very changed people, and their meeting at the end, even if it is a bit convenient is fitting. The original ending was rather abrupt and not as satisfying. Perhaps it was more realistic (a woman like Estella would get remarried) but in the end I think that for the novel the new ending offers Pip a small nugget of hope that his old dreams aren’t completely gone.

What do you think of Dickens? What do you think of Great Expectations? How about the endings?